If I revisit the topic of nuclear energy frequently, it is only because the surrounding issues remain so distressingly unresolved both here in Vermont and in Japan; and because new and concerning information seems to be discovered on far too regular a basis.
Case in point: it appears that the inadequacy of established evacuation zones for nuclear plants in Japan has been known to officials both here and in Japan since quite some time.
According to Enformable.com:
Their reasoning?
The agency, under the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (of Japan), argued that expansion of the zones “could cause social unrest and increase popular anxiety,” emails released by the commission showed.
It seems likely that this culture of rationalized deniability is as pervasive among U.S. regulators as it was in Japan.
The effectiveness of Vermont Yankee’s evacuation plan in light of lessons that could be learned from Fukushima is one of a number of issues that were never considered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in their hurried decision to relicense VY, made less than 72 hours after the accident.
In the latest video from Fairewinds Assoc., Arnie Gundersen reports that five random soil samples he personally collected in Tokyo and brought back to the U.S. for testing, all registered levels of contamination that, were they considered under U.S. regulations, would have required shipment to Texas for disposal by the DOD. As he points out, the reactors at Fukushima were twice as distant from that nation’s capitol as are ten different nuclear plants to Washington, DC.
He argues that, in considering any application for reactor licensing, whether for a new or old build, the NRC must include in its cost/benefit analysis, the costs associated with permanent loss, should the homes, farms, industrial sites, forest and natural resources become so contaminated by accident that they are lost from usefulness for the forseeable future.
Tokyo Soil Samples Would Be Considered Nuclear Waste In The US from Fairewinds Energy Education on Vimeo.
The NRC encourages public comment on their rulemaking. Why don’t you take them up on it?
This was just posted last week:
NRC Seeks Public Comment at Start of Process to Revise “Station Blackout” Rule.
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/M…
“Comments can be submitted through the regulations.gov website by searching for files under the Docket ID.
Comments can also be e – mailed to Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov; mailed to Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington,
DC 20555-0001; or faxed to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301-415-1101.”
… including such costs in the plant’s cost/benefit analysis, rather than burdening the taxpayers with them (also called “externalizing”), would make a plant too expensive.
Then where would we be?
Oh yeah – in the process of shutting down unreliable plants and replacing them with renewables combined with efficiency. But we can’t have that, nooooo.
Mr. Gundersen was in Washington. Did he go to Congress and tell the members how many nuclear power plants surround the city, and the imminent danger they face?
Could it be they already know? Congress was painfully aware how bad coal is when they chose nuclear power. They were told that nuclear power wasn’t perfect.
We know the numbers for contamination have extra margin for political purposes.
What we need to hear is what the yearly dose will be from living with the samples collected.
Why is it we never hear any numbers that are meaningful to the public? Or any numbers at all? Just saying radiation is a scare tactic.
The Japanese government is going to use 20 milliseiverts per year exposure as a safe level for citizens to reoccupy nuclear evacuated areas. How do those samples comapare to that? That amount is equal to one CT scan-a low and safe level.
The EPA cost-benefit analysis for their Cross State Air Pollution rule is the avoidance of 34,000 early deaths and $280 billion in health costs each year. That’s why we have nuclear power and need more as a bridge to the all solar, wind and biomass future.
…everybody can agree on, say, a no-brainer like pink slime, but when it comes to the nuclear energy private sector, there are so many excuses offered and outright advocacy? I guess if pink slime also glowed in the dark, there’d be folks who would think it’s cool.
This is about the health and safety of us all. I feel tempted to call defenders of unsafe reactors conspirators in the commission of mass murder. Yes, these reactors are murderous. It will be years from now, but folks living around Vernon will have an increase in cancer/leukemia rates. Bet money on it. And is any government agency or Entergy study on it. Nah. So, people who defend unsafe reactors should buy a home next to one–in your backyard.
this appeared from AP today:
http://www.boston.com/news/loc…